A. Display Technology
Displays may be broadly classified into one of two types: emissive (e.g., CRTs and plasma display panels (PDPs)) or non-emissive. This latter family, to which liquid crystal displays (LCDs) belong, relies upon an external light source, with the display only serving as a light modulator. In the case of liquid crystal displays, this external light source may be either ambient light (used in reflective displays) or a dedicated light source (such as found in direct view displays).
Liquid crystal displays rely upon three inherent features of liquid crystal (LC) materials to modulate light. The first is the ability of LC materials to cause optical rotation of polarized light. Second is the dependence of such rotation on the mechanical orientation of the liquid crystal. And third is the ability of the liquid crystal to undergo mechanical orientation by the application of an external electric field. In the construction of a simple, twisted nematic (TN) liquid crystal display, two substrates surround a layer of liquid crystal material. In a display type known as Normally White, the application of alignment layers on the inner surfaces of the substrates creates a 90° spiral of the liquid crystal director. This means that the polarization of linearly polarized light entering one face of the liquid crystal cell will be rotated 90° by the liquid crystal material. Polarization films, oriented 90° to each other, are placed on the outer surfaces of the substrates.
Light, upon entering the first polarization film becomes linearly polarized. Traversing the liquid crystal cell, the polarization of this light is rotated 90° and is allowed to exit through the second polarization film. Application of an electric field across the liquid crystal layer aligns the liquid crystal directors with the field, interrupting its ability to rotate light. Linearly polarized light passing through this cell does not have its polarization rotated and hence is blocked by the second polarization film. Thus, in the simplest sense, the liquid crystal material becomes a light valve, whose ability to allow or block light transmission is controlled by the application of an electric field.
The above description pertains to the operation of a single pixel in a liquid crystal display. High information type displays require the assembly of several million of these pixels, which are referred to in the art as sub pixels, into a matrix format. Addressing all of these sub pixels, i.e., applying an electric field to all of these sub pixels, while maximizing addressing speed and minimizing cross-talk presents several challenges. One of the preferred ways to address sub pixels is by controlling the electric field with a thin film transistor located at each sub pixel, which forms the basis of active matrix liquid crystal display devices (AMLCDs).
The manufacturing of these displays is extremely complex, and the properties of the substrate glass are extremely important. First and foremost, the glass substrates used in the production of AMLCD devices need to have their physical dimensions tightly controlled. The downdraw sheet drawing processes and, in particular, the fusion process described in U.S. Pat. No. 3,338,696 (Dockerty) and U.S. Pat. No. 3,682,609 (Dockerty), is one of the few processes capable of delivering glass sheets which can be used as substrates without requiring costly post forming finishing operations, such as lapping and polishing. Unfortunately, the fusion process places rather severe restrictions on the glass properties, requiring relatively high liquidus viscosities, preferably greater than 100,000 poises, more preferably, greater than 150,000 poises.
Typically, the two plates (substrate assemblies) that comprise a flat panel display are manufactured separately. One, the color filter plate, has a series of red, blue, green, and black organic dyes deposited on it. Each of these primary colors must correspond precisely with a sub pixel of the companion active plate. To remove the influence of differences between the ambient thermal conditions encountered during the manufacture of the two plates, it is desirable to use glass substrates whose dimensions are independent of thermal condition (i.e., glasses with lower coefficients of thermal expansion). However, this property needs to be balanced by the generation of stresses between deposited films (e.g., silicon films) and the substrates that arise due to expansion mismatch. It is estimated that an optimal coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) is in the range of 28-35×10−7/° C. (0-300° C.), preferably, 28-34×10−7/° C. (0-300° C.), more preferably, 28-33×10−7/° C. (0-300° C.).
The active plate, so called because it contains the active, thin film transistors, is manufactured using typical semiconductor type processes. These include sputtering, CVD, photolithography, and etching. It is highly desirable that the glass be unchanged during these processes. Thus, the glass needs to demonstrate both thermal stability and chemical durability.
Thermal stability (also known as thermal compaction or shrinkage) is dependent upon both the inherent viscous nature of a particular glass composition (as indicated by its strain point) and the thermal history of the glass sheet as determined by the manufacturing process. U.S. Pat. No. 5,374,595 (Dumbaugh et al.) and U.S. Pat. No. 6,319,867 (Chacon et al.) disclose glasses with strain points in excess of 650° C. which, when subjected to the thermal history of the fusion process, have acceptable thermal stability for active plates based both on a-Si thin film transistors (TFTs) and super low temperature p-Si TFTs. Higher temperature processing (such as required by low temperature p-Si TFTs) may require the addition of an annealing step to the glass substrate to ensure thermal stability.
Chemical durability implies a resistance to attack by the various etchant solutions used in the manufacture processes. Of particular interest is a resistance to attack from the dry etching conditions used to etch the silicon layer. To benchmark the dry etch conditions, a substrate sample is exposed to an etchant solution known as 110BHF. This test consists of immersing a sample of glass in a solution of 1 volume of 50 wt. % HF and 10 volumes 40 wt. % NH4F at 30° C. for 5 minutes. The sample is graded on weight loss and appearance. In addition to the 110BHF test, glass substrates are also tested for their resistance to acid conditions. In this case, the etchant solution is 5% HCl and the glass sample is immersed in the test solution for 24 hours at 95° C.
In addition to these requirements, AMLCD manufacturers are finding that both demand for larger display sizes and the economics of scale are driving them to process larger sized pieces of glass. Current industry standards are Gen VI (1500 mm×1850 mm) and Gen VII (1870 mm×2200 mm), but future efforts are geared toward even larger sizes in excess of 2 meters on each side. This raises several concerns.
First is simply the weight of the glass. The increase in glass weight in going from one generation to the next has significant implications for the robotic handlers used to ferry the glass into and through process stations. In addition, elastic sag, which is dependent upon glass density and Young's modulus, becomes a particularly critical issue with larger sheet sizes, impacting the ability to load, retrieve, and space the glass in the cassettes used to transport the glass between process stations.
In addition to the weight and sag problems, the increasing sizes of substrates leads to greater challenges in terms of manufacturing defect-free glass sheets. Because of the small sizes of sub pixels, substrates used for display applications must be essentially completely defect free.
One of the primary sources of defects is gaseous inclusions (also known as “seeds”) resulting from entrapment of air in the molten glass as batch materials are melted. Historically, such gaseous inclusions have been removed through the use of arsenic as a fining agent. However, arsenic raises environmental and health issues, and thus there has been a continuing effort in the art to produce glasses with lower arsenic levels and, preferably, glasses which are substantially arsenic free. U.S. Pat. No. 5,785,726 (Dorfeld et al.) U.S. Pat. No. 6,128,924 (Bange et al.) U.S. Pat. No. 5,824,127 (Bange et al.) and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0242996 (DeAngelis et al.) disclose processes for manufacturing arsenic free glasses.
Efforts have been made to replace arsenic fining with antimony fining. However, antimony has its own environmental and health issues. Also, compared to arsenic, antimony is a less effective fining agent.
In quantitative terms, the gaseous inclusion level in commercially produced glass sheets needs to be less than or equal to 0.10 gaseous inclusions/cm3 of glass and preferably less than or equal to 0.05 inclusions/cm3 for sheets having a volume of at least 500 cm3. Moreover, it is not sufficient to achieve a low level of gaseous inclusions in one or just a few glass sheets, but in order to be cost effective, glass manufacturers need to achieve the above low inclusion levels consistently. A measure of such consistency is to examine the gaseous defect level in a population of sequentially produced glass sheets, e.g., 50 sequential glass sheets. Thus, to have commercial viability, a glass intended for use as a substrate in display applications needs to achieve the above (or better) gaseous inclusion levels on average for at least 50 sequential sheets.
In view of the foregoing, it would be desirable to provide a glass composition for display devices having a low density to alleviate difficulties associated with larger sheet size, preferably less than or equal to 2.45 grams/cm3 and a liquidus viscosity greater than or equal to 100,000 poises to allow manufacture by, for example, the fusion process. In addition, it would be desirable for the glass to have a thermal expansion coefficient (CTE) in the range of 28-35×10−7/° C., preferably in the range of 28-34×10−7/° C., and more preferably between about 28-33×10−7/° C., over the temperature range of 0-300° C. Furthermore, it would be advantageous for the glass to have a strain point greater than 650° C., and for the glass to be resistant to attack from etchant solutions. It would also be desirable for the glass to have a low gaseous inclusion level when commercially manufactured without the use of arsenic and/or antimony as fining agents.
B. Iron and Tin in Glasses for Use as LCD Substrates
The iron and tin content of glasses to be used as LCD substrates has been discussed in a number of references.
US Patent Publication No. 2005/0096209 is directed to the use of ammonium salts as fining agents for LCD glasses. The amount of ammonium (NH4+) in the glass is from 0.0001 to 0.01 wt. %, preferably from 0.0004 to 0.001 wt. %. For such ammonium salts to be effective, the glass needs to have what this reference refers to as a high “reduction degree.” The reduction degree, in turn, can be determined by measuring the ratio of Fe2+ to the sum of Fe2+ plus Fe3+. To measure this ratio, the reference states that the content of Fe calculated as Fe2O3 needs to be at least 0.0015 wt. % (15 ppm). On the upper end, the content of Fe calculated as Fe2O3 is at most 0.3 wt. % (3,000 ppm) and in the case of glasses used for display applications is at most 0.2 wt. % (2,000 ppm), preferably at most 0.1 wt. % (1,000 ppm), and more preferably at most 0.05 wt. % (500 ppm). In terms of tin, the reference states that its glasses do not contain SnO2 or, if they do, its content is at most 0.03 parts per 100 parts (300 ppm) by mass of the glass, preferably at most 0.02 parts per 100 parts (200 ppm). None of the examples of this reference include tin.
Japanese Patent Publication No. 07-202208 relates to reducing the absorption of LCD substrates at 300 nanometers by keeping the concentration of Fe+3  less than or equal to 0.005 wt. % (50 ppm). The reference does not disclose a specific glass composition and does not mention SnO2.
Japanese Patent Publication No. 2001-261366 is also concerned with the transmission of light at 300 nanometers, as well as at longer wavelengths. It discloses an Fe+3  content of 0.008-0.050 wt. % (80-500 ppm) when expressed in terms of Fe2O3, with the total iron oxide content being 0.009-0.055 wt. % (90-550 ppm) when expressed in terms of Fe2O3. Some examples use tin at the 0.5 wt. % (5,000 ppm) or 1.0 wt. % (10,000 ppm) level. All of the examples include arsenic and/or antimony.
Japanese Patent Publication No. 2004-189535 is a further reference concerned with the transmission of iron-containing LCD substrates. It limits the Fe content to 0.005-0.03 wt. % (50-300 ppm) (preferably 0.007-0.03 wt. %; 70-300 ppm) in terms of Fe2O3 and adds SnO2 to the glass (0.01-0.3 wt. %; 100-3,000 ppm) to convert Fe3+ to Fe2+. According to the reference, arsenic inhibits the effects of tin and thus its concentration is no more than 0.1 wt. %, preferably no more than 0.05 wt. %. To achieve fining with low levels of arsenic, the reference uses antimony and chlorine, the amount of antimony being no more than 1.0 wt. % because, like arsenic, antimony has an absorption peak in the UV range. All of the examples use at least one of arsenic, antimony, and chlorine. Those that have just chlorine have an Fe2O3 content of 200 ppm or less.
Some references have disclosed glasses that do not contain arsenic, antimony, or barium. US Patent Publication No. 2005/0096209, discussed above, includes examples of this type, as does U.S. Pat. No. 6,169,047. This later patent states that ZnO, SO3, F, Cl and SnO2 may be incorporated in a total amount of at most 5 mol %. The patent does not mention iron, and none of its examples have tin or iron. U.S. Pat. No. 5,908,703 contains one example that does not contain arsenic, antimony, or barium (Example 3). That example contains 1.0 wt. % SnO2 (10,000 ppm). The patent does not mention iron.